No thanks to you, Mr. President

"From getting rid of Saddam, to reducing violence, to stabilizing the country, to facilitating elections -- you have given Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own as a democratic country. That is an extraordinary achievement" -- Obama in Baghdad during photo-op visit with American troops.

An "extraordinary achievement" that would have been squandered had the United States done what Obama wanted and turned tail before the surge.

50,000 'residual' troops in Iraq -- for how long?

None of the news I've seen so far answers this obvious question. Will 50,000 troops remain in Iraq indefinitely, as in Europe, Japan and South Korea? Or until the first suicide bombing after combat troops are withdrawn?

Update, Sunday March 1 -- all remaining troops to be withdrawn by end of 2011, according to Obama in his remarks at Camp Lejeune on Friday. Why the lack of clarity on this point from media coverage remains a mystery.

Rove giving Bush his due

Great column by Karl Rove in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. After initially describing the sentimental plane ride back to Texas, Rove wrote --

Yet, as Mr. Bush left Washington, in a last angry frenzy his critics again distorted his record, maligned his character and repeated untruths about his years in the Oval Office. Nothing they wrote or said changes the essential facts.

To start with, Mr. Bush was right about Iraq. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power. And the former president was right to change strategy and surge more U.S. troops.

A legion of critics (including President Barack Obama) claimed it couldn't work. They were wrong. Iraq is now on the mend, the war is on the path to victory, al Qaeda has been dealt a humiliating defeat, and a democracy in the heart of the Arab world is emerging. The success of Mr. Bush's surge made it possible for President Obama to warn terrorists on Tuesday "you cannot outlast us."

Congressman Keith Ellison, representing the Democrats' clown caucus

One of the most insipid interviews I've heard, between liberal radio host Ed Schultz and Congressman Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the sole Muslim in Congress as Schultz invariably describes Ellison. Choice morsels from their schmooze on Thursday --

Schultz: All right, congressman, you're on the Financial Services and Judiciary committees. They're going to get a lot of attention in this next session. The incoming Obama administration, should they launch a criminal investigation into the Bush administration officials to see whether they broke the law in the name of national security. Are you for or against a Sept. 11-style commission with subpoena power?

Ellison: Yes. And that's a complete sentence.

And I sincerely mean that, Ed ...

After regaining his bearings, Ellison went on to say that, yes, by all means, let's pursue show trials of Bush junta hooligans for putting the lives of American citizens ahead of the comfort of jihadists.

Schultz and Ellison also talked about proposed Treasury Secretary and tax scofflaw Timothy Geithner, with Ellison playing role of Obama's ventriloquist dummy, mouthing the president-elect's words nearly verbatim but with a vintage Ellison observation to boot --

Ellison: If our standard for being appointed is perfection, then somebody's going to be appointed. There's nobody who is not messed up, screwed up or goofed and I don't think we should have an unreasonable standard.

And the "messed up, screwed up or goofed" are deserving of the most consequential jobs in our government.

Next up, discussion of alleged need for Obama economic stimulus package, seeing how previous government initiatives to print reems of currency and dump it from airplanes have met with resounding success --

Ellison: We had a couple of economists come in last week and month and (what) they said is that time really is of the essence and every day that we delay, you know, more people are going to get laid off, and if you're laid off then you don't want to spend no money 'cause you don't know if you're going to have any money and if you don't spend any money, then people, somebody else is going to get laid off because their company isn't making any money. So there's this ugly, vicious cycle.

Yet despite dire situation warranting immediate attention, the specter of show trials for Bush, Cheney, et al., is impossible for Ellison to shake. Schultz points out that Obama appears lukewarm to such a spectacle.

Schultz: Is this front and center? I mean, I know that the Congress can multitask, we got a lot of things going on, but do you think this will happen in a timely fashion?

Ellison: Well, if I have anything to say about it, it will. I think that there's a number of members of, in Congress, in the Progressive Caucus, in other things like that ... As a matter of fact, earlier today, you know, we had a presentation from some professors on this issue who have studied it quite a bit who said, look, you know, if you guys let this, you know, we've had impeachments based on a president lying about sex. Now if you say that this guy doesn't have to, that there's no rebuking of what he did, we're essentially greenlighting everything he did. And so there is, there's a strong (sic) people in the community who want something done and there's a number of members of Congress who want something done. So around here, you know, things happen if you put effort behind them and I'm willing to do that.

Among those who want "something done" is the legal arm of al Qaeda, whose members are following developments with keen interest.

Enjoy your flight, Mr. Atta

Jeffrey Goldberg, national security correspondent for The Atlantic, describing his article in current issue on airport security to Air America host Rachel Maddow on Monday --

"Once a terrorist plot is about to be executed and the terrorists are in the airport already, it's a bit late to try to stop it."